07 September, 2013

(Pic courtesy : 2012patriot.wordpress.com via Google)

President
Obama is besides himself over the Assad regime using chemical weapons on the
people in Syria. It is commendable, if
one looks at it from the point of view of one human to another.What is happening in Syria is absolutely
deplorable and undoubtedly appalling.

Yet,
when I saw a red-faced David Cameron last week on the evening news channel,
accepting and acceding to the wishes of the people of the United Kingdom in not
sending in troops to Syria and when one sees Obama pushing for military intervention,
the one question that automatically arises in my mind is this “Does the US have
a right to police the world ?”. This
question becomes even more pertinent when one sees the domino effect taking
place in such situations as well.
Military intervention, as has been seen in the past, starts with the US
deciding to send in their troops and then many other countries follow suit.

Like
I said earlier, the use of chemical weapons against civilians is shocking and
unacceptable. Israel claims that Syria has
been using chemical weapons and yet again, most of their theories are
unsubstantiated. Brings me to another
pertinent question here – (since the US and Israel are hopping around on a
moral high ground here, deploring Syria’s use of chemical weapons and using
that as a base for military intervention) – Is this the first time chemical
weapons are being used ? Before you get
me wrong here, let me say at the very outset that I, for one, am just as
appalled at these weapons having been used and my heart goes out too, to the
civilians who have been at the receiving end.
But if one thinks back, did the US not use Napalm in Vietnam ? Did they not end up killing the civilians
there with these ? Did Israel not use
White Phosphorus on the Palestinian territories ? When these countries do something like this,
which body in the world dares stand up and question their actions ? When these very countries have done something
like this, on what basis are they taking a moral high ground now ?

One
might be tempted to say that the US using Napalm in Vietnam was because it was
war. In this case, they are inclined to
intervene because of the civilian casualties and deaths. But then again, if that is the logic, why did
they wait so long ? Yet again, if
civilian deaths are the issue, how about countries like North Korea where
civilians are always in danger of being put to death, depending on the whims
and fancies of their dictators ?

Talking
of civilian deaths, how about the damage inflicted and the civilian deaths caused
by the US drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan ? How do they justify those ? Fact remains, however unpalatable it may be,
that they don’t need to. They simply
have never had to justify their own actions.
Who or which body is the Govt of the USA answerable to or accountable
to, in the world of today ? Heady
feeling that must be, for sure !

The
US has been browbeating many countries over human rights issues. There have been instances where they’ve
threatened some countries with sanctions over human rights issues. How about the US government, the US army
violating human rights ? Guantanamo and
Abu Ghraib were classic examples. Yet
again, fact remains that the US does not have to answer to a higher body. Simply put, there never has been a requirement
of accountability for their actions.

If
it is out of sheer concern for human lives that the US government wishes to
intervene in Syria, why did they not do so in Rwanda ? It was during President Clinton’s
administration that Rwanda was engulfed by genocide. Hutu death squads were said to have murdered
an estimated 800000 Tutsis . The US
government did nothing other than to bury the information in an effort to
justify its inaction. Perversely enough,
one is forced, at this point, to ask if the inaction was simply because Rwanda
was just a small Central African country with no strategic value or mineral
wealth.

Iraq
was invaded by the US forces and sad truth is, no one knows exactly why that
happened. The only good that probably
came of the US invasion of Iraq was the elimination of Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein. The US government under George
W. Bush then, claimed that the war was aimed at destroying weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. No weapons of mass
destruction were found in Iraq. The US
government then claimed that they wanted to destroy the Al Qaeda base in
Iraq. News reports later suggested that
Al Qaeda had not existed in Iraq up until the US invasion. The war, the US government said, was aimed at
turning Iraq into a model of democracy but what it did in reality was lead that
nation from tyranny to total anarchy.

Going
by the above premise, if one is to assume that the US government has a heart of
gold and that they plan to invade Syria based on nothing other than
humanitarian considerations, yet another question, a rather pertinent one,
raises its head. Hypothetically
speaking, if the US forces were to invade Syria and topple President Assad’s
regime, where does Syria go from there on ?
As of today, no one has an answer to that question.

If
the US government is really interested in intervening in Syria on humanitarian
grounds, if the people of Syria are truly their prime concern, why not work
with Russia, China, the other nations who have voiced their opinions clearly in
working towards bringing all parties concerned to the negotiation table ? The US government, on the other hand, is
being stubborn on this front, like it has been in many instances in the
past. First present a set of conditions
that they know the other country will refuse to negotiate on and then go ahead
with a military invasion on the basis of non-compliance or non-acceptance.

That’s
precisely what they did in Iraq too and the whole world knows what happened
after. Unfortunately, the US government
does not seem to have taken home any lessons from the Iraq fiasco.

0
voice(s) said so:

About Me

I don many hats - a daughter, a wife, a mom to two (and still sane, by the way) and a full time teacher, to mention a few.
Writing has always been one of my passions and continues to be my mode of expressing my feelings, thoughts in my personal space.
This blog was essentially started, way back in 2006, to pen down the little tidbits,memoirs of The Nutty Siblings - Macadamia and Pecan's childhood.
Now, with the kids having grown up, the blog has indeed become a space where I pen down my thoughts as and when they demand to be penned down.
I love satire in all its aspects and of late, have embarked on a satirical journey on this blog, with regard with TamBrahm weddings. Many parts have already been penned and there are many more to come.
As life’s train chugs along, bringing along with it our share of the good’s, the bad’s and the in-between’s, as the kids grow up and we grow older, the little chronicles on Tiny Tidbits will hopefully continue to serve as those little windows , a little time machine that takes us on a humorous, engrossing trip, back in time.